State of Minnesota v. Marlon Rashaad Robertson, 2016 Minn. LEXIS 577

In June 2013 Kevin Braziel was shot and later died; State alleged the shooting targeted M.S. (a prior robbery victim) but Braziel was hit instead.
Eyewitness S.L. saw a single shooter wearing distinctive "autumn-colored" Timberland boots and a white shirt; security cameras showed a man in a white shirt and a blue Oldsmobile near the scene.
Police recovered a matching pair of autumn-colored Timberland boots at Marlon R. Robertson’s home; Robertson later sold the 9mm used in the shooting and told the buyer he had “just shot it.”
Robertson posted gang-related Facebook messages after the shooting, and the record shows prior hostility between Robertson and M.S.; Robertson also attempted to interfere with a prosecution witness and circulated grand jury marginalia identifying witnesses.
Robertson was tried by jury, convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and related counts, and sentenced to life without release; he appeals raising sufficiency of evidence, evidentiary rulings, ineffective assistance, Miller v. Alabama, and pro se claims.

Issue	Robertson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of identification evidence	Evidence insufficient to identify Robertson as shooter; lineups inconclusive; others (M.B., Parker) could be shooter	Circumstantial evidence (boots, weapon sale, Facebook, motive, video) supports identification	Sufficient evidence; convictions affirmed
Exclusion of full recorded police interview (Rule 106)	Entire interview should be admitted under rule of completeness to avoid misleading jury	Rule 106 doesn't apply because State did not introduce recording; admitting interview would let defendant testify indirectly	No abuse of discretion; exclusion proper
Sustaining objections to questions about denials and L.S. non-identification	Defense prevented from showing Robertson denied possession/admission and that L.S. failed to identify	Court properly excluded or sustained; any error harmless or non-prejudicial	Any evidentiary errors harmless; no reversible error
Ineffective assistance for not interviewing/calling M.S.	Counsel was ineffective for not interviewing or calling M.S. as defense witness	Strategic decision; testimony was effectively presented through other evidence	No Strickland prejudice shown; claim denied
Miller v. Alabama sentencing hearing	Miller’s logic requires individualized hearing; age cutoff is arbitrary under Equal Protection	Miller applies only to juvenile (under 18); Robertson was 22 so Miller inapplicable	Miller does not apply to Robertson; equal protection claim rejected

State v. Fairbanks, 842 N.W.2d 297 (Minn. 2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
State v. McArthur, 730 N.W.2d 44 (Minn. 2007) (sufficiency review principles)
State v. McAllister, 862 N.W.2d 49 (Minn. 2015) (two-step circumstantial-evidence analysis)
State v. Anderson, 789 N.W.2d 227 (Minn. 2010) (deference to jury on circumstances proved)
State v. Hurd, 819 N.W.2d 591 (Minn. 2012) (independent review of inferences from circumstances proved)
State v. Fox, 868 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 2015) (circumstantial evidence must be inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except guilt)
State v. Bauer, 598 N.W.2d 352 (Minn. 1999) (limitations on Rule 106 for recorded interviews when State does not introduce recordings)
State v. Mills, 562 N.W.2d 276 (Minn. 1997) (limitations on admitting self-serving portions of interviews)
Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles requires individualized sentencing—applied here as limited to those under 18)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Munt v. State, 880 N.W.2d 379 (Minn. 2016) (Miller does not apply to adults over 18)